• Welcome to OGBoards 10.0, keep in mind that we will be making LOTS of changes to smooth out the experience here and make it as close as possible functionally to the old software, but feel free to drop suggestions or requests in the Tech Support subforum!

FBI uncovered Russia bribery plot before Obama approved russian uranium deal

Looks like Hulka is another anti-Trump Republican who has come around.
 
Sgt Hulka said:
http://thehill.com/policy/national-...-acted-as-russian-spy-moved-closer-to-hillary

From The Hill (another nothing burger about Russian Spy ring/sleeper cell) getting close to Hillary while at State. All hushed up by Obama Justice dept. However, lets focus on Trumps phone calls and tweets!
Click to expand...

More sensationalism from the same people who wrote the first article where the actual events were much more benign.

Really, the only actual facts that are in that article is that some Russian spy trying to dig up dirt on Hillary Clinton was deported, and the same $500K that the NYT reported about when this story first broke.

But wrap it up in a sensationalized bow and.............................
 
Last edited:
Right. The FBI caught some Russian spies several years ago. We already knew this. How can you forget Anna Chapman?
 
Further proof that this story has little to no legs...

 
From ranking member of the House Intelligence Committee:

 
Unpacking Uranium One: Hype and Law

https://lawfareblog.com/unpacking-uranium-one-hype-and-law

What can we glean from all this?

-It is unlikely that Secretary Clinton personally participated in the transaction. Her assistant secretary says she did not intervene, and given the nature of the transaction and the apparent lack of controversy, that is a plausible scenario. I can see no reason to doubt his account.

-The structure of CFIUS is such that no one agency can control the outcome of the consideration. Here it appears that the entire committee and the NRC were all satisfied with the mitigation put in place. It is a very far stretch to lay this result at State's doorstep—the vigorous objection of any of the security-minded agencies would likely have derailed the transaction, but none, evidently was forthcoming. I have no doubt that State favored the sale—but that is likely the position it would take today under Secretary Rex Tillerson and was surely the position it would have taken under Secretaries Colin Powell, Condoleeza Rice and John Kerry. State has a strong institutional bias in favor of accommodating foreign investment in the United States. Here, it seems clear that the Pentagon and DHS did not object either.

-The inherent bias of the process is to approve transactions, with mitigation if needed. Intervention and blocking are rare and require more than a single agency to be activated. Put another way, no single agency has a veto on the transaction—the transaction goes forward unless a substantial majority of CFIUS is motivated by grave concerns to block it. So the most accurate way to characterize this case is that State, along with all the other agencies, declined to recommend a presidential veto.

-Uranium One's licenses are for mining and extraction, not for export. This makes the claim that we "gave away" 20% of America's uranium fairly hyperbolic. The expectation, in light of the NRC's assessment, would have been that the uranium mined would be marketed in America (with the profits going to Russia).

-It is, however, true, that the mining rights to 20% of American uranium are now held by a Russian state agency. That is troubling (and had it been me, I would have tried to generate opposition to the sale). It isn't a "give away," but it is the case that Rusatom has de jure and de facto legal rights that can be exercised to limit production if it wishes to do so.
 
Here you go Breitbart CLOWNS

Newenglanddeac said:
Unpacking Uranium One: Hype and Law

https://lawfareblog.com/unpacking-uranium-one-hype-and-law

What can we glean from all this?

-It is unlikely that Secretary Clinton personally participated in the transaction. Her assistant secretary says she did not intervene, and given the nature of the transaction and the apparent lack of controversy, that is a plausible scenario. I can see no reason to doubt his account.

-The structure of CFIUS is such that no one agency can control the outcome of the consideration. Here it appears that the entire committee and the NRC were all satisfied with the mitigation put in place. It is a very far stretch to lay this result at State's doorstep—the vigorous objection of any of the security-minded agencies would likely have derailed the transaction, but none, evidently was forthcoming. I have no doubt that State favored the sale—but that is likely the position it would take today under Secretary Rex Tillerson and was surely the position it would have taken under Secretaries Colin Powell, Condoleeza Rice and John Kerry. State has a strong institutional bias in favor of accommodating foreign investment in the United States. Here, it seems clear that the Pentagon and DHS did not object either.

-The inherent bias of the process is to approve transactions, with mitigation if needed. Intervention and blocking are rare and require more than a single agency to be activated. Put another way, no single agency has a veto on the transaction—the transaction goes forward unless a substantial majority of CFIUS is motivated by grave concerns to block it. So the most accurate way to characterize this case is that State, along with all the other agencies, declined to recommend a presidential veto.

-Uranium One's licenses are for mining and extraction, not for export. This makes the claim that we "gave away" 20% of America's uranium fairly hyperbolic. The expectation, in light of the NRC's assessment, would have been that the uranium mined would be marketed in America (with the profits going to Russia).

-It is, however, true, that the mining rights to 20% of American uranium are now held by a Russian state agency. That is troubling (and had it been me, I would have tried to generate opposition to the sale). It isn't a "give away," but it is the case that Rusatom has de jure and de facto legal rights that can be exercised to limit production if it wishes to do so.
Click to expand...
 
Russian Bots Targeted Clinton And Mueller Leading Up To Collusion Indictments

By Jessica Kwong On Wednesday, November 1, 2017 - 10:28
U.S.
Experts have increasingly called attention to Russia’s use of covert “propaganda factories” to subvert democracy. They flood Twitter and Facebook with millions of computer-generated bots posting under false names. Photo: REUTERS/Dado Ruvic

Russian bots spread stories relating to a controversial uranium deal linked to Hillary Clinton in the days before special counsel Robert Mueller disclosed charges against three former Trump campaign members in his probe of Russia's attempts to influence the 2016 election.

Hamilton 68, a nonpartisan security research project tracing Russia-tied information warfare on Twitter, examined 58 unique URLs promoted by accounts linked to the Kremlin between October 14 and 20. The project found that the most prominent theme—making up 24 percent of the links shared—was a deal that Clinton and the Obama administration approved giving Moscow control of U.S. uranium while the FBI had proof of Russian bribery.


The original story, which ran in The Hill, was a top story for a number of days, and “all other URLs shared promoted some variation on a theme of corruption, collusion, cover-up by the Clinton-led State Department and/or the Mueller-led FBI (#ClintonRussianCollusion was also a top hashtag last week),” according to Hamilton 68.

http://www.newsweek.com/russian-bot...er-leading-collusion-indictments-698160?amp=1
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top